The aim of this blog is to maintain a presence for the pro-heterosexual lobby on the internet. It was conceived as a response to the attempted intimidation of heterosexual and ex-gay people by gay activists in Uganda.
It is also meant to provide factual information in the face of gay propaganda.
The blog is unashamedly Christian.

Monday, April 6, 2009

A Conversation with Gay Uganda

ExGayUganda supports the right of the individual to renounce homosexuality. To this end we try to resent the facts about homosexuality and its changeability. Recently we were thinking about dialogue with our 'gay' brothers and sisters. This conversation took place between Anonymous and gayuganda.blogspot.com just after the George Oundo revelations about active gay recruitment in Uganda. Read it for yourself and see if there was effective communication.

First published: 20090331 10:26:44 AM ESTGay rights activists in Uganda have cried foul over a campaign by some Christians and government leaders to project homosexuals in Uganda as rogues who are sponsored by foreign interests to spoil the morals of children in Uganda.A group of Gay activists today addressed a press conference in Kampala and said the campaign led by Stephen Langa of Family Life Network is misinforming the public in order to make Ugandans hate homosexuals.

Victor Mukasa, the coordinator of the Uganda Minority Sexual Rights group says the campaign against homosexuals in the country is based on wrong information that homosexuality is an acquired behavior which can be taught to people.

Mukasa says homosexuals are naturally born attracted to people of the same sex and do not “change like weather”. Mukasa says it is wrong for Langa and his group to accuse homosexuals of being in a campaign to recruit and change school children into homosexuality. He says these allegations are aimed at making Ugandans to hate homosexuals and force the government to become punish homosexuals.

Homosexuality is illegal in Uganda but the High Court last December ruled in a landmark case that homosexuals should be accorded the same rights as other Ugandans.But the Family Life Network recently presented a group of former homosexuals who claimed they used to recruit students through offering them money and friendship.Mukasa says the people claiming to have been working to promote homosexuality in schools have been paid to talk bad about homosexuals in order to make Ugandans hate homosexuals, instead of appreciating their differences.

Stephen Langa recently told parents in a seminar that homosexuals are on a campaign to recruit students into homosexuality a practice he says is immoral.Mukasa however says homosexuals are normal people born like any child but develop a natural attraction to the same sex.

Fr Musaala, who has been counselling gays for 10 years has said that people acquire homosexuality, a disorder, for reasons including money. Does this confirm George Oundo's revelations? Help us understand.

Homosexuality is not a "disorder". All the recent scientific invetstigation of the last 10 years shows that it is biological. It is not a "lifestyle choice". Historical statistical work shows that around 7-10% of every culture in the world, on every single continent where humans live, has always been homosexual. To be so persistent shows it has some survival value from a genetic point of view. Exactly what that value might be, is now being studied. That's the science. The human side of things also playa a part.Fear - of being different, of not conforming, of being an outcast, even of being killed - has all worked to keep this a stigma in society. In this sense, it is no different from hiding your mentally-disordered child away, or being afarid of albinos. These childish fears of ours are slowly being brought into the open, but it takes time. Many would prefer that they are not. George Oundo apparently wanted the Uganda gay groups to support and assist him in a way they don't have resources for. He also seems to be a confused, frightened, and not well-educated person. Stephen Langa's group may appear to offer him a refuge from his world. Like any religious cult, it's simple certainties seem to made life safe, and easy. To get that, he is prepared to attack people he knows, and go along with their version of what his life has been about. Money will always play a part. People will sell their bodies for sex anywhere in the world. Men will always take advantage of that. It's not a homosexual thing. It's a human thing.

Thanks Spiralx, for that explanation. And, to add to it, Fr. Musaala gives the 'Catholic' point of view... Or rather he mangles it a bit. There is so much information about sexuality and homosexuality, that it is a shame that the 'politics' hide facts. But that is human too, I guess

1. My information is different from yours on the science of homosexuality. Please name a few of the studies you have seen that say homosexuality is biological and see if they do not link back to Bailey, Le Vay and Hamer. Said eminent scientists are very wary of making the claim that you make for their studies. They have in fact found the opposite. Dean Hamer goes as far as saying “The pedigree study failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance.” This information was recently posted by a commentator on gug before gug removed it. One other example is enough ( if gug allows you to see it) Simon Le Vay (American neuroscientist , graduate of Cambridge University and Harvard Medical School) known for his studies about brain structures and sexual orientation carried out a study which was paraded as proof that there is a gay gene. However Le Vay himself says, “ I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic…I didn’t show that gay men are born that way…[it is] the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”

2. You mention albinism and mental disorders as inherited traits that compare to homosexuality in their naturalness (lack of choice). So what survival value do those two natural conditions have? Not everything natural is valuable.

3. By the way, the figure for the incidence of homosexuality in any given population is 2-5%. It rises where the lifestyle is actively promoted or condoned. Whatever the case, the question remains,is it desirable?

4. Father Musaala was referring to the Catechism 2358 (teachings of the Roman Catholic Church) which reads, “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Those of you who have been counseled by Fr Musaala should be familiar with this viewpoint. It is what Father teaches. Fr Musaala refutes the notion that people are born gay and goes as far as to say some people choose the gay lifestyle for economic reasons. He does seem to suggest same sex attraction is not a choice but is inherent. Do you act on all your inherent feelings and attractions? It has been nice chatting. God bless you and keep you. May he turn His countenance towards you and give you His peace.Pray for me also.

Wow Anon,thanks for your information.You know what, I tend not to be well read... And, though I have tended to read about homosexuality because it concerns me deeply, I have tended to go for the conclusions rather than the derivations, so to say. So, the scientists that you write about... Well, I dont know them. But I do accept the conclusion that the World Health Organisation has come to. And all the other Proffesional Health Associations. But I will not go for the 'Catholic church teaching'. It starts from the wrong premises, dont you think?And dont just quote those. I know quite a few things, even of the fly whose sexual orientation was flipped back and forth, by flipping a gene... And of course the fact that there are so many homosexual animals out there...!If gug allows you to see it? Why, you are caught out in a lie there. I have allowed people on this blog to call me a faggot, and unnatural, etc. Why would I object to this kind of debate? I thrive on it. I took off some of your comments? That is a lie, my dear.I love your arguments. Shows me how people on the other side of the debate can actually twist around facts to suit them. Oh well, we also do, but it is instructive. You have taken facts, and dressed them in the clothes you want them to have, and your conclusion is foregone. Yet, at the same time, you have also shown a little knowledge which the mass of your supporters in Uganda lack to a large degree. If they were to know half of what you say, they would not actually come out and gay bash us. If we exist naturally, why should they determine to wipe us out? And, if I do act on my inherent attraction to a fellow man, and do love him, why do you want to call my love hate?

I am no expert on Catholicism. I would never have gone to ask the good father about sexuality. I confess I dont understand how I would ask a person who never has sex to teach me about sex, from books! I would rather have the real thing. And dont be shy, anon. You can opt to have a name. Makes me that much honoured to have you here. I never, and will not take away any post or comment. Because it is simply instructive to know what you think. You dont have to think like me to think well.gug

Spiralx has mentioned a childish fear of gays and compares it to the fear many people have for albinos and the way they hide their mentally disordered children. I hope I have made the Catholic teaching on this clear. Moving on, all areas of life present challenges. But in resisting stigmatisation, one can become hardened to any point of view at all. Defensive I think is the word. This makes us vulnerable to those who would use our area of sensitivity for their own ends. I shall give you a scenario. I met a gay guy once, call him Nathan. The thing is I see him as a victim because of a number of factors. First, he became homosexually active in his early teens, when most boys are focussed on football etc. He was with an expatriate who wined and dined him. Nathan was thus conditioned to expect to be maintained by others, the manner of his entry in to puberty taught him that.After some years Nathan came face to face with reality. There were other younger boys and he was no longer in demand. High and dry, he was on the periphery of the gay world and became an activist, channelling his anger towards heteros. He was encouraged to 'come out' by, amongst others, people who had used him as a young boy, a child really. By the way, even heterosexuals use people, before gug begins to shout at me.Now my issue is this. Those who used him when it suited them did not and will not come out. Why? It will jeopardise their jobs and standing in society because of the stigma which I accept exists. In remaining in the closet, they are prepared to make remarks that would be called homophobic if made by someone without SSA. So I see Nathan as a casualty of the gay movement. Okay, he decided to leave the gay scene, and what happens? He is attacked on all fronts; character, intelligence, education etc. Everything each of us does, even helping and loving others, is initially powered by self-interest, to preserve, lengthen and make comfortable our lives. Even spiritually, the tendency persists, we want to preserve our souls. It is the human condition. So Nathan is doing what we are all doing with the only difference being he lacks sophistication.

gug, Christian love comes only through purification which is a lifetimes's journey. Christianity does not claim otherwise, "We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Romans 3:22-24Of course faults persist and the Bible is full of rebukes directed at the converts, and not unbelievers.Titus Chapter 3:3-4"At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. 4But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy."

So my concern is that the real issues are masked by the posturing on both sides, the anger, the table-thumping, the self-justification...it is madness. Love, peace, go on, hugs too.

Re: World Health Organisation categorisations of diseases. These are called the DSM or in full: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders True, WHO removed homosexuality from its categorisation. Some argue this was done under pressure from the gay lobby. But wait.The DSM has schizophrenia on its list of mental disorders. A large number of psychiatrists oppose this as there is no test for schizophrenia, no schizophrenic gene has been isolated and the treatment so far available leaves much to be desired. IT MAY NOT BE A DISEASE BUT IT IS A DISORDER In fact one president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) resigned over the issue.

Psychology

There has since grown up the 'anti-psychiatry movement' opposed to the alleged lack of integrity of the APA on this question. They say the APA is under the influence of the pharmaceutical lobby which is interested in selling psychiatric drugs for schizophrenia, which drugs may not actually help. So what am I saying? I would not hitch my cart to that particular horse on an issue involving my life. It seems the politics have interfered with the science. The Psychological movement which seems to have the ascendency at the moment and which some leading psychaitrists have now joined, has less mud clinging to it. And they have carried out studies of early childhood gender identification and the insults that can occur to us at that stage to in that process. Because it is early childhood, the orientation seems to be 'from birth'.

Anon, the one who insists he is like gug...!I think you are the one who is 'defensive' here. Imagine, you pick out one case of a gay person you think you know, and apply it to me, gug. I find it hilarious. You know what, go fill the gaps in your knowledge of homosexuality. It is not fitting that you know nothing, and insist that you know everything about me.I am being blunt, and dis courteous. But I am being truthful. Why do you compare me to a person who is not sure of his sexuality? Havent I confirmed again and again that I am very sure of my sexuality? Why do I have to go through the mass of writings that i have poured out on this blog to simply confirm that I know a lot about my sexuality, and I am comfortable with what I am?No, I am not like Nathan at all. And when you simplistically compare me to him, you do abuse my intelligence. Truly.It is the same as your insistence on quoting me the bible. You may as well quote for me the Bagdaghagi Gita, or the Quoran. They are all holy books, but I believe in none.Ok, that may make me evil in your holy eyes, but in as much as i respect your right to believe, you must give me some respect for my right NOT to believe. Again and again, you Christians have used the bible as the stones you throw at me. I know it makes you look very holy. Unfortunately, it is a matter of fact that you look arrogant and untutored. Your point of view must prevail, because you believe...! Who says that?And, why do you assume that i will, as a non believer, listen to your ramblings from the very book which you use to justify stoning me and depriving me of life? Logic deserts you, because you believe. It may be your right to believe, but please, allow me my right to logic!Is it madness? It is, if you allow your logic to be controlled by outside forces. I am aware of the distortions- but I am supremely unconfortable by guys who come with stones to stone me, all in the name of love. Ideals do not replace reality, and I allow myself the luxury to think logically.gug

Dear Anon (the one who does not believe he is gug…!) Wow, thank you for your learned discourse. Now, I have the unfortunate job of correcting you. The DSM is not a publication of the World Health Organisation.That is an absolute faux pas. Terrible indeed. The WHO and those who publish the DSM are different organizations. One is national, the other is international. I will not try to give you the facts. I am sure if you search for them, you will be more than happy to believe the results of your research. Far be it that it comes from a tainted source like gug. But, it is interesting if you will dare admit to yourself where you are wrong!About ‘schizophrenia’. I had to go and look for what the crazy word means. It means craziness, isn’t it? I would most certainly hitch my horse to this issue which concerns my life. You use words like ‘many’- a word which may mean anything like ‘more than 2’. Crazy indeed. Why not use ‘most’ which implies a majority? Why am I tackling the semantics? Because in your desire to ‘prove’ that you are in the right, you have gone to some funny extremes.Those doctors who do not support you must be gay. Because they do not support you. You say professional organizations are ‘forced’ to say homosexuality is not a disease by the ‘gay lobby’. You blissfully turn facts upside down, and try to convince us that white is black, just because you believe it is so.I don’t know much about schizophrenia (are you a medic?), maybe I will ask about it. But I know about homosexuality. Psychiatrist and Psychologist organizations all over the world have consistently rejected your point of view. Again and again they have stated what is fact, and you tend to get around that by insisting that they are gay, or the gay loby is influencing them. I don’t have your need to prove my beliefs. I would rather go with what the majority of health practitioners, who don’t have to ‘prove’ their beliefs. And I am very strong and confident there.It is funny. You try to discredit those who you cannot by implying they are not worth listening to! If I say you are a fraud, you will be angered. But you are a fraud, so says most of the medical profession. It would be a disaster for me to even give you an ear. What you want is me to believe in you, because you believe. A zealot, one of Jesus’s Pharisees. Doesn’t matter that you are not correct. Doesn’t matter that your faith will hurt me. What matters is that you get me as a zealot, to follow you, to believe even more than you do. Crazy, fraud, indeed you are!gug

As tantrums go, that was a classic. I seem to have touched a nerve. Or several. I am not offended by you, but it is amazing the lather you were able to work up with so few resources. (I am still trying to find out if a short temper is genetic, as SSA is alleged to be. Or environmental, as SSA is said to be.) We were not even talking about you. We were talking about the general scenario unfolding in Uganda where an ex gay man has made some allegations against an allegedly gay priest.This has drawn different reactions from different people. My position has been;

1. the ex gay man has been unfairly attacked by the gay community for wanting to be ex gay.2. your remarks about the phoneyness of Christianity have been answered by telling you Christians do not claim - as you think - they are Christian because they are good. They are Christian because they want to be good. That is what the quotations from Romans and Titus mean. There is absolutely no hint of throwing stones as you are well aware. You refer to Christianity throughout the blog. What, are we supposed to be intimidated by you and not respond?The tantrum was a smokescreen to avoid considering and answering the questions posed. Read them. And I challenge you to keep this commentary on the blog. But I suspect it is much more convenient for you to continue to pose as the eternal victim of Christians, the police, ex gays, the law, parents, friends, anonymous bloggers, the illiterate, etc. Rather than take time to reflect. All mature people take time to reflect. It is about our lives, is yours not worth it?If you want to be the centre of attention, that is fine, it is your blog, but I was really looking for a general discussion.

It is interesting the way you tend to project, (I think that is the word), to assume things about me. Give me emotions and such… Why do you think you should? I tend to say what I feel. Don’t feel the need to embellish them. Not at all. And, a stick is a stick to me.What is SSA? So, do I have a short temper? Are you going to rationalize it and blame it with what? My defence of myself? Don’t get over board. Stick to what is, I don’t mind being what I am. You only diminish me when you try so hard to explain me…!You are boring me. I keep the commentaries on the blog, not because you challenge me. But because I want. Is this typical Christian hypocrisy? Huh? I can give as well as I get, actually.You are actually not looking for a ‘general discussion’. You want me to stand back and admire your feathers…!Err, I don’t think I will.You have accused me of quite a lot of things in this last post of yours. Very interesting, I must say. Why have you? I am yet to work it out. Maybe I am talking to the same person, or not. You have refused the courtesy of giving yourself an identity apart from your words.Why are you so defensive? By the way, about the ex-gay man, we actually care diddly dat, as the Americans so expressively put it. Why should we? It is when he attacks us and threatens our livelihood in the name of ‘Jesus’ that we come out and attack.Or shouldn’t we attack because he is Christian? gug

Quite right, DSM is published by American Psychiatrists Association. Wikipedia's definition is at the end of this comment.The rest of my previous post stands. I have no personal axe to grind re the inclusion or exclusion of homosexuality as a mental disease. Personally I lean towards psychological interpretations for both homosexuality and schizophrenia. I only mention schizo because it was through researching it that I came across the DSM and my point was the DSM is not above criticism. Let me actually quote Wikipedia to which you so kindly directed me,"Following controversy and protests from gay activists at APA annual conferences from 1970 to 1973, as well as the emergence of new data from researchers such as Alfred Kinsey and Evelyn Hooker, the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, no longer listed homosexuality as a category of disorder."So the lobbying is an objective fact, not Anon's bias. The A. Kinsey referred to here whose work contributed to the alteration of the DSM is described as his biographer thus "Alfred C. Kinsey: A Public/Private Life, describes Kinsey as bisexual". (Woman magazine)Thanks for reminding me. A review of one of his books contains the line "'Kinsey...has done for sex what Columbus did for geography,' declared a pair of enthusiasts...forgetting that Columbus did not know where he was when he got there.... '" (Get the punchline? Columbus thought the West Indies were India.) Wikipedia (I looked it up as you said) says "any reevaluation of controversial disorders [in the DSM] must be viewed as a POLITICAL as well as scientific decision." This was said by none othjer than Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist, chief architect of the DSM.)The point is DSM is NOT above criticism. As I said , you hitch your life to that set of (changeable and changing) opinions if you like, and I shall hitch mine to the Word of God, agreed? I have not used playground bully language in speaking to you, please be civil to those of us using the net. It is only fair. And mature.

Oh, when you have a moment, "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. It is used in the United States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers.The DSM has attracted controversy and criticism as well as praise."

Clap, clap, clap... SlowRound of applause, for one of the anons.Very good that you have worked out about the DSM. Ok, now, for a victory round, the WHO's classification. You are a medic, arent you? No, it is good. Means that you can follow more the dotted line.Wikipedia of course has its own problems. Which you should know. Before you blame me, I actually pointed out long ago that it is a starting point. For the lazy like me. So, do yourself the favor, and look beyond... There is much more to find!I commented that you are a medic, are you? You do speak with some authority! Why hide it? Kinsey was bisexual? Didnt know that. But, then a leap of logic (yours) we cannot trust what Kinsey researched because he was bisexual. That is what you think...! Or at least that can be implied from what you wrote. Shows your prejudice, huh? Was Evelyn Hooker a hooker? Could explain her conclusions, dont you think? Or was she a lesbian...!About criticising the DSM... Of course you can, if you are that kind of proffesional who relies on it. I have rubbed shoulders with scientists, and know enough that there is nothing very concrete. So, I should rely on your scripture instead of the DSM which changes? Pass.Anon, I do love you.So, I do intimidate you? Why would I? The enormous power of my brain? The chiding, the irritation, the coaching? Hey, just know, I will lead you by the nose and laugh at you to my very great enjoyment. What I wont do is to admire your plummage when you talk nonsense about homosexuality- or sexuality in general.Your scriptures,... uh, I will not go there. I am certain we will come back to that. Problem is, you dont try to understand what I write, and believe that I am abusing you, when in actual fact I am having a good laugh. I admire Jesus. He was in truth a itinerant philosopher. The log in your eye indeed! Ok, for us to wind up that, since I am not an American, have you checked out the World Health Organisation?

Speaking of the American Psychiatrists Association (APA), a leading light in the APA, is a Dr Robert Spitzer. He was instrumental in declassifying homosexuality as a mental disease. (A position as I have said I do not necessarily disagree with). He said at that time (1974-ish) he believed homosexuality to be unchangeable. Other professional organisations followed suit. The APA and other professional organisations issued a joint communique once, which said in part,

"...health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through 'reparative therapy' and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm."

However in 2001 he carried out a study to test that assumption and found that in fact Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is changeable. He also said he could not see the APA revisiting its position on reparative therapy for unwanted SSA because of fear of gay activists.

On that note, I have to move on. Sorry I could not stay longer but there are a million blogs out there to explore. It was nice bumping in to you. Who knows, I may pass this way again.

Ha, Anon...You are moving on? Dont know how much I will miss you. But I most certainly will!

Oh, so you dodged the WHO issue... Was it you who was complaining of me dodging questions?And of the guy you dont 'necessarily' oppose on SSA (wow, that was a new one for me. Thanks for the information.) So, he is in fear of us gay activists? Poor scientist that he is. But then, what of all that has occured since 1974? Is that the year?But you have to make up your mind, mind you. Quoting you, Kinsey and Hooker (a bisexual and a hooker) forced the changing of the DSM. But then there was an influential light, the Dr Spitzer, who you failed to mention...Or, let us say he was a gay man then too. Then in 2001, he changed his mind, and in your mind, he became influential?Your brain, anon, works in great and mysterious ways.You know what, the challenge to you is your intelligence. The inconsistencies and self deception cannot rest well. Untill you wipe them out with a major bit of illogic.Bye bye anyway. Go seek out all those blogs, and blog away. Dearest Anon anon..!